John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Are the minutes of the private meeting of 30 January and the meeting of 6 February agreed? Agreed. A typo must be corrected in one of the minutes but it is only a minor error. Two matters arise from the minutes. The clerk has circulated a briefing note on the Rehab group on foot of receipt of information from SOLAS, the HSE and the Department of Justice and Equality. We will examine matters relating to the Department and the HSE in the coming weeks and I propose, now that we have the information, that we set a date for Rehab to come before the committee within the next two to three weeks, if appropriate, and that the Accounting Officers of the various sections also come before the committee on the same day.

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

For clarification, are we awaiting more information? If not, I agree that Rehab should be asked to come before the committee.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is the extent of the information from the Department with regard to its funding. It is important we notify Rehab to state we intend to hold a meeting within the next two weeks and that it should prepare for it, and that we ask the various Accounting Officers relevant to Rehab funding to be present as well.

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It involves the Departments of Health and Justice and Equality.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, those two Departments and SOLAS. The HSE will also be present.

Eoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will the Comptroller and Auditor General prepare something for the meeting? Reference is made in the note to a report done in 2009. Is there a follow-up to this?

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have asked to clerk to make available to members a report from 2009. If any issue arises from this with regard to up-to-date information, or responses or recommendations arising from the report which were implemented by any of the organisations, it can be made available to members. We will conduct our hearings based on this report and the more current information we have. We will be able to cover every aspect of funding in Rehab, and members can deal with the issues as they see fit. It is hoped to arrange this within the next two weeks. The Accounting Officers will be with Rehab on the day.

The second issue relates to a matter dealt with in public session last week relating to a meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts held in private session. As the decision was taken in public session, I propose to deal with correspondence from Deputies MacDonald and Ross now. I will ask the clerk to the committee to outline and confirm what happened last week.

Clerk to the Committee:

To recap very quickly, a decision was taken last week not to refer the request from Sergeant McCabe's solicitors to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, CPP, for a decision on giving him a transcript. The discussion we had was based on the procedural advice the committee received that we were not in a position to release the transcript because it would mark a fundamental change in procedure which would affect other committees in future. From this point of view, the advice was to refer it to the CPP. Another issue raised was that the Oireachtas would not be in a position to provide a redacted transcript of the evidence. On this basis the committee decided, with Deputy Ross dissenting, that it would not send a transcript or accede to Sergeant McCabe's request. This is where we are set.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

According to what happened last week at our meeting this decision was taken. Deputies McDonald and Ross have written to the committee.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Unfortunately I had a prior engagement and could not be at the meeting last week. I was astonished at the decision taken by the committee. To go back to first principles, before we come to the CPP or any other body, the reason the evidence from Sergeant McCabe was taken in private session was as a precaution to ensure neither the committee nor the sergeant, wittingly or otherwise, stepped outside our remit and made statements which would get the sergeant or somebody else into legal hot water. This is why we held the session in private. We did not hold a session in private because the people gathered around the committee room took a vow of secrecy. We did not hold a session in private in a bid to withhold legitimate information from the public domain. We held the session in private solely and specifically as a legal precaution. We need to remember this.

In light of this I believe we made it clear to Sergeant McCabe, at the end of the meeting when we discussed matters, that should he make an application to the committee for a transcript of his evidence, we would facilitate it.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why the committee would take the position to hold his testimony private. To guard it in that way seems outrageous and unnecessary. In the course of this debacle, for all sorts of reasons damage has been done, certainly in the mind of the public, to the idea of whistleblowers, whistleblowing within An Garda Síochána, how that is regarded and so on. We do more damage by needlessly insisting on not giving this man a transcript of his evidence, as requested by his solicitor. Members know I would have preferred to hear him in public session. I understand why that did not happen, but it is not credible for us to take the position that the man should not get a transcript of his own evidence or that we as a committee would not consider making that transcript public. That is what we should do and I see no reason not to. Therefore, the letter went to the clerk to the committee.

It is concerning that the committee took this decision last week. If, as the clerk advises, we must go through another Oireachtas structure to release that document, so be it. I would like a fuller explanation. I do not understand why that other structure could not give a copy of the transcript to Sergeant McCabe. Bear in mind, we ordinarily hear testimony from Accounting Officers and all sorts of other individuals in this committee room in public session. That is our normal practice. We heard Sergeant McCabe in private session simply to guard against any legal mishap. I do not believe that happened in the course of the meeting and I see no good reason to deny the sergeant a copy of the transcript of his evidence.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Dowds is next.

Robert Dowds (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will waive my write to speak for the moment and contribute later.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We receive a significant amount of correspondence every week, deal with it at a meeting and make a decision on what to do with it. In my three years on the committee - the Chairman has been a Member for longer - I cannot recall a time when we reviewed that decision at the next week's meeting. We made a decision and had an extensive discussion on it.

This is where I disagree with Deputy McDonald. We did not decide to hold the meeting in private session for legal fears, although many of us had those fears. The actual reason that we decided to hold the meeting in private session - I am sure the clerk can confirm this, as it is on the record of this committee - was that we received a written request from Sergeant McCabe to receive his evidence in private session. We never got to the stage where we had a debate or division on whether we should have the meeting in public or private.

Sergeant McCabe was at the meeting. He is privy to what was discussed at it. I made the point last week that if Sergeant McCabe's legal advisers wanted access for some reason to an audio tape or to hear what was said for his legal protection, it would be quite different from producing a transcript. However, we were told quite clearly last week that we did not have the power and had to go to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, CPP. We were also told by our legal advisers at the private session meeting, which has now been extensively discussed, that there were things said at that meeting that, if a transcript was produced, would have to be redacted. We have now been told very clearly by the clerk from the advice he sought that there is no such thing as a redacted transcript, that it cannot be redacted. That was what we were clearly told last week. I can recall things that were said at the private meeting - it was held in private for a reason - that, if they were to be published, could pose legal difficulties for the whistleblower. That is the clear legal advice we were given. I do not know why we are reviewing a decision that we have already made.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are at this point because of the letter from Deputies Ross and McDonald.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I respect that.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is not so much a review as we are dealing with the letter.

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I agree with Deputy Harris. The decision was taken, but it might be helpful if the clerk could expound on his comment regarding a fundamental change in Dáil committees. It has not been expounded on sufficiently. It needs to be. The clerk needs to explain to people watching this committee what the implications would be for every Dáil committee that sat in private session and the witnesses who requested private meetings. Examples of that would be security and privacy reasons. If three people attended a justice committee and one subsequently asked for a transcript to be released to him or her and to be made public, there would be major difficulties. We would be setting a precedent in that regard. It would be significantly problematic in the sense of security and privacy. We have not discussed the details or the implications for Oireachtas committees. We need to expand on those a little. If the clerk could give us that kind of information, it might be helpful, even at this stage.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before the clerk replies, we reached a decision last week and are now referring to information from the CPP and the legal adviser. Those two items of information are not before us. In fairness to the clerk, he can give a verbal account of them. Before we consider this matter, perhaps what is required is to put the information to the committee. Does the clerk wish to reply?

Clerk to the Committee:

Deputy Deasy has captured it. When I approached the senior officials in the organisation, I was told we could be setting a dangerous precedent along the lines described by the Deputy, in that we could not guarantee the privacy or security of evidence given in private session if private meetings were transcribed and made available to the public. This is the concern of the Oireachtas. For this reason, I was advised to send the matter to the CPP. Under Standing Order 99, the CPP has an oversight role in terms of procedure and can deal with the matter and make a call. My difficulty in advising the committee was that we needed to go through that loop if we decided to grant a transcript to Sergeant McCabe. That is where we left the matter.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before I call Deputy Ross, there is another issue. The legal right of Sergeant McCabe to ask for the transcript needs to be explained to the committee, as does the issue involving the CPP.

Shane Ross (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I take the clerk's point about a precedent, but I would regard it as a welcome break with a fundamental flaw in the procedures if we were to make a fundamental change. A fundamental change is needed if a person who gives evidence to the committee cannot ask for his or her own transcript. There is something wrong with the procedures. We should make that break and show an example to the other committees by doing that. I do not deny the advice, but I do not accept it because I am not sure if it is right or wrong.

If we need to, let us do it. That is why we are here. Let us release it. This is an extraordinary situation, in that we are claiming to protect the whistleblower's rights by not giving him his own transcript. His lawyers can advise him on that. This letter came from his lawyers. He does not need a redacted copy. He can get it and keep it private. He is not going to libel himself. He is not going to release it if it is defamatory or injurious of himself. He will get it and give it to his lawyers, who can then advise him on it.

It seems to me that, in the present circumstances, if we do not release it, this will be interpreted as a very political decision. It will be seen in the light of an independent body appearing before another committee yesterday, that is, the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, GSOC. It will be seen that anybody who challenges the might of the Garda and the Government is silenced. That is not the sort of message the Committee of Public Accounts should be sending out.

We should be sending out a message of transparency in terms of individuals appearing before this committee to challenge the State and its offices being given a fair and equal hearing. We are not doing this. For that reason, I believe we should release the transcript to Sergeant McCabe today.

Eoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

By way of clarification, the request did not come from Mr. McCabe lawyer's; it came through them. That is quite clear from the letter. The committee's decision will be only interpreted as a political decision if we as members of the committee choose to interpret it that way and ignore all the advice we have heard to date on the reason a transcript cannot be produced. There is nothing in the transcript that is going to change the world or blow our minds. We all know that. At the same time, in producing the transcript we risk damaging Sergeant McCabe. He may not even be aware of that. We have to protect whistleblowers. That is our function as public representatives engaged in this process. We do not protect that individual or future individuals if we produce a transcript.

A decision has been made. That was the will of the committee last week. I do not think anything has changed. It is time to move on to the other issues on our agenda that need to be dealt with, of which there are many.

Kieran O'Donnell (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

First, the meeting was held in private at Sergeant's McCabe's request. Second, under the Standing Orders of the House the Editor of Debates cannot produce a redacted transcript. We were told by our legal adviser following the private meeting that certain elements of the evidence would need to be redacted. Third, an independent Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission investigation is under way.

The remit of this committee is relevant. The whistleblower provided information to the Comptroller and Auditor General, who then conducted an investigation in terms of penalty points of the overall PULSE system. We are to produce a report on this particular chapter of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report. As part of that process, we met Sergeant McCabe in private, as requested by him. The information provided at that meeting will feed into the report which the committee will produce. That is the work of this committee. Ultimately, our job is to prepare a report based on all the evidence put before us, including the Comptroller and Auditor General's report, evidence from the Garda Commissioner and his colleagues and the evidence of Sergeant McCabe during the private meeting. Taking all factors into account and the overall legal ramifications involved, the committee made its decision last week. One can complicate this all one likes, but fundamentally the meeting was held in private at the witness's request and we cannot release a redacted transcript of his evidence because the Editor of Debates cannot do so. The legal advice we received was that elements of the evidence needed to be redacted. Therefore, there would be major legal implications to our releasing the transcript.

This committee must produce a report. The evidence provided to us by Sergeant McCabe will feed into that report. It is our job to ensure proper use of public funds. That is the reason we took the decision we did last week as a committee.

Robert Dowds (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Has Sergeant McCabe been informed through his solicitor of how things have played out up to now?

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

According to the clerk, he was informed last week that the transcript-----

Robert Dowds (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Therefore, he has information on the reason the transcript cannot be released.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes

Robert Dowds (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That was not that apparent on the day he appeared before the committee.

Derek Nolan (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Another reason for the holding of meetings in private, in respect of which transcripts are not produced, is to allow members an opportunity to say certain things they would not say in public session or want reported. This allows people to speak more freely and to push issues a little more. If we are to go down the road of producing transcripts of private meetings just because a Deputy or Senator asked a witness a question, holding meetings in private will be futile. What will be the point of holding meetings in private if the transcripts can be released?

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That Sergeant McCabe requested the meeting to be held in private is correct. However, it must be recalled that was on foot of the committee asking him to take legal advice. It should be borne in mind that a legal adviser was present for the duration of the meeting. It is nonsense to suggest that somehow we could go to the final frontier in terms of our line of questioning. I believe we were, as a committee, very tightly monitored and disciplined in terms of our having to remain within very strict parameters when questioning the witness. That does not tally with the facts.

I reiterate the meeting was held in private because of legitimate legal concerns. That is the only reason the meeting was held in private. It was not because Sergeant McCabe was any less entitled to a public hearing before this committee. There were legal concerns on his part and on the part of the committee. That is how we went about our business. We are now at the far end of that process and the sergeant has, through his solicitor, requested a transcript not of the evidence of another witness but of his evidence. Sergeant McCabe was the only witness before the committee during that meeting. He has requested a transcript of that meeting but for some procedural reason or some archaic notion within this system, he cannot have a transcript as requested through his solicitor. We are telling him he cannot have a transcript of his evidence despite that every other witness on this issue gave evidence in public session, all of whom were free to put whatever they liked on the public record. It is absolutely and utterly absurd. In a spirit of frankness with fellow committee members, I interpret that as a political decision. I do not see it as consistent with our standard practice nor do I see it as in any way legally defensible, current Oireachtas practice notwithstanding. There are many established practices which, quite frankly, we could well set aside.

I know we are dealing with this as a matter of correspondence from myself and Deputy Ross. I would like this decision revisited today. It remains my position that the transcript ought to be made available to the sergeant.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are here as the Committee of Public Accounts representing the public. Up to now, we have been doing a good job on behalf of the public we represent. The public is supportive of what has come out of various committees during recent weeks. I believe that if we now pull down the shutters in terms of particular information we have received and tell the public this is because on occasion this is a private rather than public committee, that would be damaging to the committee. This is the Committee of Public Accounts. It would tarnish the standing of this committee if we were to go down the road of saying some of our business must be done in private.

In regard to the point that the release of transcripts of private meetings or sessions would be damaging to that process, I do not believe there is ever a reason for private sessions or meetings. There is no private session in the Dáil Chamber. Committees of the Houses are supposed to be the equivalent of the Dáil meeting outside of the main Chamber. I see no reason for private sessions or meetings. That may be a little revolutionary to some people but it has been my consistent view since entering politics that the Dáil is a public venue and we are elected to act in public. I believe that is how we should proceed.

In regard to the record of the evidence, my understanding of the record of the Dáil is that it is not an absolute verbatim transcription of each individual word that has been said. The essence of the published transcript is to reflect the essence of what is said. I advise people to check that out. Many a person stumbles over a word, gets the meaning wrong or inadvertently says the wrong thing, and that is the reason that the blacks are published. It gives everybody an opportunity - and I do not think too many people avail of the opportunity - to check precisely what they said and whether that is precisely what they meant to say.

The record can reflect the essence of what was said. I would not be worried if some particular words were not exactly what was intended, once an opportunity is given to the person who said those words to ensure, before the transcript is finalised and a draft transcript issued - not redacted; I do not seek a redacted version - that they are reported correctly, and they should be given an opportunity to have the draft transcript, subject to verification by the people who spoke here. That includes everybody who spoke here. Everybody who spoke at the meeting is entitled to have a copy of the transcript, in my opinion, as well as the witness here.

I understand that many people here are concerned about the witness. We seem to be very concerned about protecting his legal rights. He is a big boy. He has legal advisers. He is a member of the Garda Síochána so he should be well able to look after his own legal rights. I appreciate that people expressed our concern for him, but it was a little bit feigned. The Chairman reads out something at the beginning of every meeting to every witness who comes in here, including that gentleman on that day. It says that the witness has "absolute privilege." Am I correct, Chairman? I think he reads out that proviso. The laws that we passed here in the Oireachtas have given absolute privilege to everything that is said in a committee. The Chairman continues in his opening remarks - and he might clarify the matter before we conclude this discussion - by stating that if a person is straying into particular ground, he or she can be directed by him, as Chairman, on behalf of the committee to desist, and if he or she does not desist then he or she will lose absolute privilege and may only have partial privilege. Everything that was said has absolute privilege. It is my understanding, based on the law of the land that we have passed here, that what is said here has absolute privilege and that Sergeant McCabe would have nothing to worry about legally even if everything he said was published and somebody had an issue with it. It would be damaging to the Committee of Public Accounts - I emphasise the words "Public Accounts" - if we were not to give each person who was at the meeting, including the members, an opportunity to review what was said and to confirm a final transcript. That should be done.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I call Deputy Ross, who will be followed by Deputy Deasy, and then we will conclude.

Shane Ross (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I agree with what Deputy Fleming has said. One point that has been missed, which is an important point, is that a transcript would help resolve any conflict about what happened at that private meeting. I have already seen stuff in the public arena, which is absolute nonsense, about what happened at the private meeting. It would be very useful if we could have a definitive script that would do that.

I am afraid that what I see as the opposition to releasing the transcript is a smokescreen of procedural obstacles. They are not convincing. We have got rules that we can work under, but to have all sorts of different committees and lawyers referred to, and all sorts of excuses like that, really does not wash. If we want to release this, we can release it and we should release it. I formally propose that we make a transcript and that we release it to Sergeant McCabe.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy cannot make that proposition for the moment.

Shane Ross (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will do it in a minute.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Let me come back to it.

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We must go back to the nub of the matter - the advice that the clerk to the committee has been given, which is worth repeating. I would say to Deputy Fleming that in my opinion, this is the Legislature and that is where we are. On occasion, legislation is formulated, in my opinion, after private evidence is given in committee. We would be constructing an impediment to any potential whistleblower wishing to give such testimony to a Dáil committee in a private setting. We would potentially be compromising any whistleblower or individual who appeared or wanted to appear before a Dáil committee in private. I am not prepared to jeopardise individuals who might prospectively be giving, or want to give, private evidence to a Dáil committee in the future. That, effectively, would be the impact of allowing this transcript to be made public. That is the advice that we have been given - the very strong advice - that it would amount to a fundamental change in how the Oireachtas and its committees do their business. It provides protection for whistleblowers and I am not prepared to jeopardise that position. I think that is why people made that decision last week.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When we heard the witness, at the end of the meeting he was asked did he want the transcript and he said that he did. I think it was Deputy Eoghan Murphy who suggested that he should get legal advice.

Following that, this letter came in. I take Deputy Eoghan Murphy's point that the solicitor was simply expressing the view, if one likes, of Sergeant McCabe that he would like to have the transcript or that he would seek a transcript. I asked the clerk to the committee to listen back to the tape of that meeting and it was said that a request would be considered. It did not say that we would release it, Deputy Ross; it said that it would be considered. Last week, in my absence, the meeting decided, considered and reached a decision in relation to that.

There are one or two issues. The first issue is the letter we received from the solicitor representing Sergeant Maurice McCabe. It has to be checked if that letter is asking for the transcript as a legal right of a witness, whether it was in private session or not. Second, the Committee on Procedure and Privileges has been quoted. This matter was dealt with but I propose that we seek clarification from the CPP. I want to know what it is about, how it impacts on the committee and how it distinguishes between that private session and something else. It is really just on a point of information, because we have been discussing it here and one can get the facts, but the decision, as far as I can make out from the minutes, was made last week. If that decision, having been made, is going to be challenged either legally or otherwise, then we need to look at that and get advice on it. I want to ask the clerk to the committee to get the information from the CPP in relation to its belief about how it might impact on committees.

Coming to Deputy Ross's proposition, following what I have just described, the clerk to the committee can advise us on the proposition. At the moment we have the letter from Deputies Ross and McDonald. By and large, the letter was dealt with in the debate this morning - it was dealt with by the decision of last week - and the only thing that would change any of that would be the CPP's or Mr. McCabe's legal advice and further correspondence from them as to his right, as a witness, to receive the transcript. As further suggestions have been made by Deputy Sean Fleming that the transcript be made available to all, we need to question that before it is pushed by way of a decision by members. Deputy Fleming might agree to clarify what he asking us to ask the CPP and Deputies Ross and McDonald might do likewise, while we receive clarification. As of now, there is no requirement for a division in the committee because there is nothing before us except the letter of request. We need that other information before anything is furthered in this regard.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Chairman has asked me to clarify my request.

It is beyond me that, as a Member of the Oireachtas, when I make comments and put questions at a committee meeting and they are recorded, I should have to ask the Ceann Comhairle and the CPP for permission to provide me with a record of what I said. It is absurd. If the witness does not look for it, I am saying that I want a record of what was said at the meeting that I attended.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Then it must be put to the CPP. It is as simple as that.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No; I do not want to involve the CPP. I am entitled to it.

Eoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If I want to listen to the recording, I could listen to it. It it not our right?

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I presume so.

Eoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy has the right to listen back to the recording.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does every member have the right to go to the office where the recordings are? Is that agreed? That is a first step.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No one is denying anyone's rights, neither the rights of Sergeant McCabe nor the rights of committee members. I am just asking that it be clarified. That can be done immediately. We can ask whether it is the right of a member to have access to a transcript. Maybe we can have it before the end of the meeting or next week.

Kieran O'Donnell (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Did Deputy Sean Fleming, as a former Chairman of a committee, not make reference two or three meetings ago to listening to a recording?

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I chaired a committee in the previous Oireachtas. There was a misunderstanding among most Oireachtas Members to the effect that we could not get a record of meetings in private session. As Chairman of a committee in the last Oireachtas, there was confusion about something that was said and I got the opportunity to go to Kildare House with the clerk to the committee and listen to the tape. I am more aware of that and the facility should be available to each of us automatically.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Chairman has made a proposition to get information from the CPP about the rights of the witness. A decision not to give this man a transcript of his evidence was taken in the absence of that clarification. My difficulty with the proposed course of action is that it still stands as a decision of the committee not to give Sergeant McCabe a transcript of his evidence, which was taken in private session for the reasons outlined. I am not happy with that. I accept that I was as láthair for the last meeting but unfortunately I could not avoid that. I want the decision revisited and I would be more than happy if the committee took the stance that it did not rule out giving the transcription to Sergeant McCabe. In other words, that reverses last week's decision. If there is a necessity for further clarification, we can provide it. I am not happy that the date of correspondence from this man's solicitor is 31 January 2014 and a fortnight later it remains the decided position that we are telling the sergeant to get lost and that he is not getting a copy of his evidence. I would be happier with the proposal of Deputy Shane Ross that we revisit the decision and that we have an opportunity to vote on it. I want to categorically record my position on this matter.

Shane Ross (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I see no merit in going to the CPP. The effect would be to delay any decision and we do not know when the decision will come. We are not even sure that we are subject to it. We should go ahead today and decide whether to provide the transcript to Sergeant McCabe. The idea of going around the houses to lawyers and committees and coming around to other suggestions is unacceptable. This is a matter of principle-----

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is not around the houses.

Shane Ross (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sorry, Chairman, if I can just finish, this is a matter of fundamental principle, and the credibility of this particular committee depends upon our being transparent and open and not playing games with other committees or lawyers. This should be released to Sergeant McCabe. On this point we cannot compromise.

Áine Collins (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are all talking about fundamental principles. The procedures of this committee are very important and have been set down for a long time. If we want to change them that is fine, but we must have a discussion and find out how to do it. We cannot change something because it does not suit us after the event. In hindsight, we should have had a discussion before we invited Sergeant McCabe to appear on whether the meeting should be in public session or private session. The question arises of whether Sergeant McCabe can come in and listen to his evidence.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No.

Áine Collins (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If he requires clarification on something, perhaps we can facilitate him.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Various propositions have been made and there are a number of procedural matters I have to check as Chairman. I am not prepared to enter into a vote or take a proposition right now. As Chairman, I want to ask about the procedure today and come back to the committee and explain the procedure and do what is necessary after I have been informed. That is a reasonable course of action. I understand the views, strongly expressed, by members that have spoken. I do not want to cut debate short, but I must seek clarification. I will not go around the houses, Deputy Ross; I will find out for myself. I will go with the clerk and report back to the meeting and, if necessary and if I can, I will report back this afternoon. I am asking the members to agree to that and I ask the clerk to the committee to establish whether we can arrange the meeting with whoever we need to meet today. If we can have a verbal clarification, then we can make a decision.

Shane Ross (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Who will the Chairman meet?

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will find that out. I will ask that we set aside the debate for the moment to establish whom we must meet, and if the meeting can be arranged today. Before the end of this meeting, I will come back and inform the committee. Procedurally, we must be correct in every step we take.

Eoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to raise an issue arising from the minutes. It is related to the Dublin Docklands Development Authority, DDDA, rather than this matter.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thank God for that.

Eoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not want to delay the meeting, but I request that we write to the DDDA about the credit card issue and ask for a list of everyone who held credit cards, including non-executive directors and members of staff, and for details of the credit card bills. I am not sure whether the information we have is complete.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Murphy raised the matter of the DDDA. We will request that all of the outstanding information requested from the DDDA be sought, if there is any outstanding matter, and we will make it clear to Professor Brennan with regard to her evidence that we require that the date be set sooner than August. The committee is busy and I understand that she is busy, but if we must sit on a day other than Thursday, agreed between both parties, members will agree to do so. We must conclude our evidence on the DDDA and we must provide a report to the Houses of the Oireachtas. We will ask Professor Brennan to co-operate fully with that by arranging a hearing at the earliest possible date. Are any other matters arising? No.

I will move on to correspondence received since the meeting on Thursday, 6 February 2014. Item 3A is correspondence from Accounting Officers and Ministers. We have correspondence from Mr. Paul O’Toole, CEO of SOLAS, which concerns the Rehab Group. Item 3A.2 is correspondence received from Mr. John Tierney, managing director of Irish Water, regarding issues raised at our meeting.

This is to be noted and published. The previous correspondence is also to be noted and published. Item 3A.3 is correspondence dated 7 February 2014 from Ms Geraldine Tallon, Secretary General of the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, regarding a reply to issues raised at our meeting on 15 January 2014.

I refer to Mr. O'Toole's correspondence on SOLAS. The appropriate protection being given to whistleblowers in what was FÁS was raised here before and I refer, in particular, to Ms Una Halliday, who is under investigation by that organisation. I ask that she is given the appropriate protection within the spirit of the legislation and that her health conditions are recognised in the meetings being held currently. What is happening to her is outrageous and I ask that this is made known to Mr. O'Toole.

In regard to the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Murphy raised the issue of Poolbeg, which now stands at €108 million. I ask that we request from Ms Tallon, which we did before, a detailed statement in regard to accountability for that money, how it is to be accounted for and the state of the audit on and detail of that spend. Ms Tallon was questioned on this at a meeting here and there are issues in regard to that money. I would like it to be explained to the committee members, so that we are fully briefed on the matter. I would also like the audit arrangements in that regard to be outlined. If there is a report on it to date, I ask that report is made available to the committee members.

Eoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is a detailed audit from the Local Government Audit Service. Is it within our remit to examine that report if someone was to appear before the committee? Could we use that as a basis for our questioning?

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We want to examine this and that is why I am asking that we get the details, so that we have the full report, to which the Deputy referred, and any other up-to-date details that might exist in regard to the spending of that money. On foot of that information, we can make that decision ourselves. We can ask the Accounting Officer, as it is taxpayers' money. I ask that this is made available to us as soon as possible.

Arising from last week's meeting, the section 38 report in regard to compliance was to be made available to us at the end of January. Do we have an up-to-date report from the HSE on the section 38s and their compliance?

Clerk to the Committee:

The section 38s had a deadline of 31 January 2014 to come back. After last week's meeting, I wrote to the HSE for a report. It is working on it now. The HSE is due before the committee the week after next when it will deal with it fully. The Secretary General is due on that date. It is working on a reply to the committee.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It has not indicated how many are compliant.

Clerk to the Committee:

It has not given us that indication.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can we seek that information before the HSE appears before the committee so that it is not new to us on the day and that we have a clear picture of what is going on in that regard?

Clerk to the Committee:

Yes.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can it be the practice in future that when the HSE has significant information that it circulates it to the committee in advance? The practice the HSE adopted on two occasions when it has been on live television has been to produce information for the first time for dramatic effect and causing public consternation while this committee has not had the opportunity to consider it calmly in advance. That is not good practice.

The letter to which I referred is about the CRC. It is clear it had it in its possession for a full seven days but it waited until it appeared here and was on live television to read it out and without showing us the courtesy of sending it to us in advance. I do not like the practice of some of these people using the Committee of Public Accounts as a platform for different agendas because the television cameras are on them.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is why I am asking for detailed information before this meeting because we need to examine it prior to the meeting. Also, in regard to section 38s, have we given notice to the board members of the CRC and to the remuneration committee of the wish of committee members that they would appear before us at some stage when this report is done? Does that require to be done?

Clerk to the Committee:

That requires to be done.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can we put them on notice?

Clerk to the Committee:

We can.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Chairman mentioned the CRC. Mr. Hamilton Goulding mentioned in the national media that he had documentation he would be willing to supply to the Committee of Public Accounts, I presume, on the financial package given to Mr. Kiely the presentation put together by its advisers at the time and the potential minutes of the remuneration committee. I note from our correspondence that we have not received that yet and four to six weeks have elapsed. If Mr. Goulding is going to provide it, it would be helpful if we could have that information in advance.

Clerk to the Committee:

We have put Mr. Goulding on notice but we have not asked him about that. That is something in the media.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He said on the public airways that he would make that available.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will write again to Mr. Goulding. Can we send him transcripts of the meetings we have had so far requesting the information Deputy Harris outlined because we will require all of this for the next meeting? Perhaps Mr. Goulding will appear as well.

Clerk to the Committee:

He will.

Shane Ross (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Are we asking the entire board, those members who were appeared before or those members who resigned?

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The request at the meeting, as far as I can remember, was for the remuneration committee and for the board to appear. That was my understanding but I will ask the clerk to check that.

Clerk to the Committee:

I will check it.

Shane Ross (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I think it was the entire board.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are anxious to get these matters dealt with.

Deputy Murphy raised the issue of the Jewish Museum with the OPW and since then, a list of questions have come in. I propose we send them on to the OPW for replies. I checked this with Deputy Murphy.

We want to finalise our report on the penalty point issue. It might be worthwhile talking to the Road Safety Authority. That will finish that particular aspect of our work. We will invite in the Road Safety Authority and will conclude our report. We have already set a timeframe for Rehab.

In regard to SIPTU and the HSE account, we have made a submission-----

Clerk to the Committee:

It was cleared yesterday evening by the legal people.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We had to make a legal submission for compellability in regard to that. I think Deputy Nolan proposed it. We have made that submission to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and have asked it to treat it as a matter of urgency. Again, we are waiting on other parties in order for us to finalise our report.

Shane Ross (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Could we have a little more detail on that? What response have we got from the Committee on Procedure and Privileges on that, or when can we expect to get one? It has been there for a very long time.

Clerk to the Committee:

The matter was held up until the new legislation on compellability came into being. When we discussed it last June, the legislation had been passed but it had not been commenced. A draft application went in and it needed to be legally proofed, etc. That process has been ongoing for a while. It has now been submitted.

Shane Ross (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That does not really answer my question. When will we get an answer?

Clerk to the Committee:

I cannot speak for the Committee on Procedure and Privileges as to when it meets but I presume it-----

Shane Ross (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is the body from whom we are going to ask for an immediate response on the other issue this afternoon.

Clerk to the Committee:

A decision on compellability would have to be made by the full Committee on Procedure and Privileges. That is the way the legislation is framed. We will meet the Acting Clerk of the Dáil to discuss the procedural issues that arose in regard to Sergeant McCabe's request.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have mentioned the bank stabilisation report.

We will now move on to individual correspondence. We have received correspondence from Deputy Nolan regarding wards of court payments. This correspondence is to be noted and forwarded to the Courts Services for a note on the issues raised. Is that acceptable, Deputy Nolan?

Derek Nolan (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have also received correspondence dated 6 February 2014 from Deputy McDonald requesting a meeting on access for the domestic SME and micro business sectors to public procurement contracts. This is to be noted. It is a matter for the public procurement service which is under the remit of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. We had a meeting with the Office of Public Works during which the issue of public procurement was raised. The OPW dealt with public procurement in the past but now there is a special unit dealing with it. At that meeting we asked for the details of the OPW's public procurement policy and outcomes. We can remind the OPW to give us that information and then we can bring before us the Department and the section responsible for public procurement and we can do that fairly soon. That will deal with the contents of Deputy McDonald's letter.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thank you.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Item No. 3B.3 is correspondence from Deputy McDonald and Deputy Ross which we dealt with earlier. We will return to it as soon as we get the information required. Item No. 3B.4 is correspondence dated 2 February 2014 from Mr. Eugene Mitchell, Ballinasloe, County Galway, regarding the ongoing flood damage to premises, which will be noted. We have received previous correspondence from Mr. Mitchell and the OPW on this matter and we can send this latest letter to the OPW and seek a report on the matter. The next item is correspondence dated 1 February 2014 from Mr. Edward Gus Ryan, chairman of the Irish Greyhound Owners and Breeders Federation, which is to be noted and forwarded to the Department for a response. The Comptroller and Auditor General will be reporting on the Limerick Greyhound Stadium in due course.

The next item is correspondence received on 10 February 2014 from Deputy Creighton regarding a Committee of Public Accounts hearing into political party funding. This is to be noted and published. This letter is asking that the Committee of Public Accounts examine the funding that goes to support political parties. My understanding is that it is paid from the Central Fund, which is audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General so perhaps he will tell us the extent of his audit and if it falls within his remit.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

Certainly the payments to political parties come from the Central Fund of the Exchequer but my audit does not extend to the political parties themselves.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does it cover the fund?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

Yes, it looks at the correctness of the payments, in line with the legislation.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that not what Deputy Creighton is looking for?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

I have just seen this letter and have not had a chance to study it but-----

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It asks that we examine the funding that goes to support political parties. She is not asking for an audit of the political parties but about how the fund itself is audited. Can we get a note on that?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

Yes. The correctness of the payments is tested in the course of the audit. In fact-----

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In the course of the Comptroller and Auditor General's audit?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

Yes, the audit that we would carry out. The amount that is paid to individual political parties is what is of concern to us. On an initial reading of Deputy Creighton's letter, it seems to raise some policy issues but so long as the payments are correct and in line with the legislation, that is where the audit would take it.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can we seek a note from the Accounting Officer responsible for the actual spending on political parties rather than a note on the policy issues? We can direct the policy issues to the appropriate Department.

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To clarify, the Comptroller and Auditor General looks at this because the funds come from the Central Fund. He examines the payments made from the Central Fund to political parties but to date, he has not identified any issues regarding those payments, as they relate to the legislation. Is that correct?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

That is correct.

Shane Ross (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What is being proposed here? Is the Chairman going to get a note from the Accounting Officer on the matter?

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, a note on the actual spend, that is, on the figures. We will ask for that and then the committee can decide what it wishes to do after that.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is fair enough.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will now deal with documents related to today's meeting, namely correspondence dated 7 February from Mr. Adrian O'Donovan of the NTMA with briefing papers for matters to be considered. These papers are to be noted and published. We received further correspondence on 11 February from Mr. Adrian O'Donovan with an opening statement which is to be noted and published. Since our meeting on 6 February 2014, reports on accounts have been received for the Higher Education and Training Awards Council, the National Qualifications Authority of Ireland, the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces, County Cavan VEC, County Tipperary VEC, the Law Reform Commission, NUI Maynooth, the North-South Language Body and the Medical Bureau of Road Safety. Are there any issues in these accounts?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

There are a number of issues listed which I can deal with if the Chairman so wishes.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I suggest that the above accounts be noted but that we will seek a note from the OPW and the Department of Justice and Equality on the steps taken to deal with the excess accommodation at the Law Reform Commission, where there is ineffective expenditure. We will seek that note from them.

On our work programme, are we finished with the matters relating to Waterford Regional Hospital?

Clerk to the Committee:

Yes, we just have to write a report on it.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Are there any comments on the work programme or any other business members wish to raise? Can we agree the agenda for our meeting on Thursday 20 February, which is to examine the 2012 Annual Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General and Appropriation Accounts, Vote 9 - Office of the Revenue Commissioners, with specific focus on chapter 3 - revenue collection, chapter 24 - management of revenue debt, chapter 25 - taxpayer compliance, chapter 26 - tax losses, and chapter 27 - tax audit settlements. Is that agreed? Agreed.

We will now call in our witnesses for today's meeting.